Dpreview getting paranoid in its old age
RichA
getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
the site. Corporations hate confrontation, because to them it's
negative publicity and any acrimony caused by posts would be looked on
by them as "bad" no matter how on-topic they are. In effect, the
result is censorship of topics that would have been formerly
legitimate forum postings.
A reaction example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32016139
I understand why the moderators do it. Amazon (they own Dpreview)
could very well decide to make site management changes if they
perceive that forum activity was too volatile or subversive.
nospam
<65850870-6c00-4fd5...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned,
you mean like you, under numerous different names?
IP
news:65850870-6c00-4fd5...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> I understand why the moderators do it. Amazon (they own Dpreview)
> could very well decide to make site management changes if they
> perceive that forum activity was too volatile or subversive.
That's news to me. I thought Phil owned it?
nospam
<ip@themoon..com> wrote:
> That's news to me. I thought Phil owned it?
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07051402amazonacquiresdpreview.asp>
Bruce
No. Phil Askey sold the site to Amazon in May 2007, but still runs it.
IP
news:030620090802026995%nos...@nospam.invalid..
>
>> That's news to me. I thought Phil owned it?
>
> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07051402amazonacquiresdpreview.asp>
Well, you learn something new everyday. I wonder how much they paid.
IP
news:pepc251fdkdfd5heh...@4ax.com...
>>> I understand why the moderators do it. Amazon (they own Dpreview)
>>> could very well decide to make site management changes if they
>>> perceive that forum activity was too volatile or subversive.
>>
>>That's news to me. I thought Phil owned it?
>
>
> No. Phil Askey sold the site to Amazon in May 2007, but still runs it.
I wonder if that's why the 1D-III was never reviewed, because they were busy
negotiating with Amazon at the time?
nospam
<ip@themoon..com> wrote:
> I wonder if that's why the 1D-III was never reviewed, because they were busy
> negotiating with Amazon at the time?
that, and they moved to a larger office so they had to tear down the
studio. by the time the dust settled there were a lot more interesting
cameras out there.
Pete D
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:65850870-6c00-4fd5...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Um, they do own it and cn do whatever they want realy, if you don't like it
you can just go elsewhere, its not like it is a bunch of newsgroups.
John Navas
wrote in
<65850870-6c00-4fd5...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:
I find the relative lack of noise/crap as compared to r.p.d refreshing.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
DMac
The reason people you see contributing on dpreview don't post on
newsgroups is because they know the dpreview moderators won't tolerate
the behaviour that is common place here. Long time members or not, it
makes for a more constructive conversation if no one is attacked.
Some members of this group could do well to remember that it's OK to
have a different opinion than someone else but to attack someone's
family and business because they disagree is both wrong and on sites
like dpreview, totally banned.
Bruce
We'll never know.
But Amazon appear to have been quite good at staying out of how DPReview
is run, just as they have left IMDB.com largely to its own devices. The
forum activity was already a problem for DPReview before Amazon took
over, and the way of dealing with it doesn't seem to have changed much.
John Navas
in <h0701r$u83$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>The reason people you see contributing on dpreview don't post on
>newsgroups is because they know the dpreview moderators won't tolerate
>the behaviour that is common place here. Long time members or not, it
>makes for a more constructive conversation if no one is attacked.
>
>Some members of this group could do well to remember that it's OK to
>have a different opinion than someone else but to attack someone's
>family and business because they disagree is both wrong and on sites
>like dpreview, totally banned.
Amen.
DRS
news:9hud25hq06c7kg2of...@4ax.com
[...]
> I find the relative lack of noise/crap as compared to r.p.d
> refreshing.
I don't understand how anyone can bother with it. The Web is quite unsuited
to forums generally but the DPReview forum format is outstandingly awful.
Bob Larter
> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
> the site.
They banned you for trolling, eh?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
GregS
>
>"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:65850870-6c00-4fd5...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
>> the site. Corporations hate confrontation, because to them it's
>> negative publicity and any acrimony caused by posts would be looked on
>> by them as "bad" no matter how on-topic they are. In effect, the
>> result is censorship of topics that would have been formerly
>> legitimate forum postings.
>> A reaction example:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32016139
>>
>> I understand why the moderators do it. Amazon (they own Dpreview)
>> could very well decide to make site management changes if they
>> perceive that forum activity was too volatile or subversive.
In DP Review, they say they are a separate entity. They
should perhaps update their site. I have always liked Imaging Resource,
and still like it more than DP Review. DP Review shows up first
in Google most of the time. Perhaps thast why its overly rated.
I still have not find a side by side image comparision in DPR. Perhaps I'm miissing it. ?
greg
Pete D
>
> In DP Review, they say they are a separate entity. They
> should perhaps update their site. I have always liked Imaging Resource,
> and still like it more than DP Review. DP Review shows up first
> in Google most of the time. Perhaps thast why its overly rated.
> I still have not find a side by side image comparision in DPR. Perhaps I'm
> miissing it. ?
>
> greg
>
>
>>Um, they do own it and cn do whatever they want realy, if you don't like
>>it
>>you can just go elsewhere, its not like it is a bunch of newsgroups.
>>
>>
Personally I pretty much only use DP Review for the Pentax SLR forum, great
bunch of contributors and great info and I have met some of the people from
the group. All good positive stuff.
Pete D
> couldn't get the login to "stick", no matter what I did it would tell me
> I wasn't logged in whenever I tried to reply to something so I gave up.
I get this with Firefox so just use IE for this site.
Pete D
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a28a4df$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> RichA wrote:
>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
>> the site.
>
> They banned you for trolling, eh?
Actually Rich has been repeatedly banned and probably still doesn't get the
fatc that DP Review is a owned site and is not Usenet so being an ass is not
an option, well you can be up to a point but then they ban you.
nospam
<4a297cc7$0$32382$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
<n...@email.com> wrote:
> > RichA wrote:
> >> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
> >> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
> >> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
> >> the site.
> >
> > They banned you for trolling, eh?
>
> Actually Rich has been repeatedly banned and probably still doesn't get the
> fatc that DP Review is a owned site and is not Usenet so being an ass is not
> an option, well you can be up to a point but then they ban you.
he's also left a pretty good trail...
Rich
nos...@nospam.invalid:
What got me was posting links to stories from amateurphotographer's site
about the state of photographic (and other) freedoms deteriorating in
Britain. As far as I could tell, they were "news" dealt with photography
and met with the forum mandate. But some Brits didn't like it.
Rich
212.23.3.119:
> I agree, for one thing it relies completely on javascript to work for
> no reason at all. I don't know of any other web forum which requires
> such crap simply to view posts.
It's so you are exposed to the ads. Also, the cookies that link to the
clicksites they pay for.
Rich
@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
> RichA wrote:
>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
>> the site.
>
> They banned you for trolling, eh?
>
>
Postings news stories concering photography is still within the mandate of
the "News" forum, or should be. Only problem is, Dpreview themselves never
post any news, save for product updates, products they are paid to sell.
DMac
How do you know this Pete?
It sounds like a bit of your favourite past time of head kicking to me.
Bob Larter
You mean they don't let you post whines about 'plastic' cameras, etc?
Lucky Dpreview!
ASAAR
>> I agree, for one thing it relies completely on javascript to work for
>> no reason at all. I don't know of any other web forum which requires
>> such crap simply to view posts.
>
> It's so you are exposed to the ads. Also, the cookies that link to the
> clicksites they pay for.
It only takes an add-on and ads are gone . . .
Rich
> Rich wrote:
> > Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a28a4df$1
> > @dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
> >> RichA wrote:
> >>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
> >>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
> >>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
> >>> the site.
> >> They banned you for trolling, eh?
>
> > Postings news stories concering photography is still within the mandate of
> > the "News" forum, or should be. Only problem is, Dpreview themselves never
> > post any news, save for product updates, products they are paid to sell.
>
> You mean they don't let you post whines about 'plastic' cameras, etc?
>
> Lucky Dpreview!
Never brought it up, except in cases where camera makers "saw the
light" (latest example, Pentax) and shifted from plastic to metal in
the flagship camera. But more people are posting about the erosion of
rights in Britain so they'll have their work cut-out for them soon
enough.
John Turco
>
> RichA wrote:
> > I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
> > getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
> > actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
> > the site.
>
> They banned you for trolling, eh?
Hello, Bob:
Don't you know his secret? By day, he's Rich Anderson, mild-mannered
garbage collector in a major Canadian city.
But, when night falls, he becomes..............Captain Canuck!
Yes, Captain Canuck, strange troll from another country. He fights a
never-ending battle against plastic-bodied digicams, virtually all P&S
models, Canon, Kodak, Chinese spammers, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Rich still shouldn't quit his day job, underqualified as he is. :-J
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Pete D
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:gn4k255bt7q5n7rmr...@4ax.com...
I use AdBlocker, works a treat.
Pete
Pete D
"DMac" <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote in message
news:h0cdbt$99r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
?????
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
>>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
>>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
>>> the site.
>> They banned you for trolling, eh?
>
>
> Hello, Bob:
>
> Don't you know his secret? By day, he's Rich Anderson, mild-mannered
> garbage collector in a major Canadian city.
>
> But, when night falls, he becomes..............Captain Canuck!
>
> Yes, Captain Canuck, strange troll from another country. He fights a
> never-ending battle against plastic-bodied digicams, virtually all P&S
> models, Canon, Kodak, Chinese spammers, etc., etc., etc., etc.
LOL.
fujifanboi
And doing a damn fine job of it too!
ASAAR
>> It only takes an add-on and ads are gone . . .
>>
>
> I use AdBlocker, works a treat.
I didn't mind the ads too much until I discovered that when
viewing saved pages, the ads came back in duplicate, completely
obscuring essential links. Adblock Plus also works well, as does
Flashblock.